The tourist tax for Portimão was approved on February 6th, but the theme is giving sleeve cloth. After the decision, the executive council PS and the opposition CDS made arguments, with accusations of "political circus" and of trying to "throw a smokescreen for public opinion."
Well, one of the topics under discussion at the Chamber meeting held on February 6th was, precisely, the TTourist tax, a measure that was approved, in September of last year, by the AMAL – Algarve Intermunicipal Community, but which now needs to be discussed and deliberated first by the 16 Chambers of the region, then by the Municipal Assemblies.
The introduction of the fee in Portimão was approved by majority in the Chamber, with six votes in favor (PS, Left Bloc, PSD) and one abstention (CDS).
Ao Sul Informação, Isilda Gomes, mayor of Portimão, explained that the proposal presented, which is still going to the Municipal Assembly, "provides a fee of 1,5 euros and does not change in any way what was proposed by AMAL".
The estimated profits are «more than 2 million euros», to be invested «in public space and in promoting the municipality as a tourist destination».
According to the Portimão local authority, three documents were discussed at the meeting: “the proposal itself, the draft of the draft regulation and an economic-financial study that supports the creation of the tax”.
This proposal "was during the meeting widely discussed between the municipal executive, and all requests for clarification from councilors were fully answered," says the Chamber, in a press release.
But it was precisely on the part of the council, José Pedro Caçorino, of the CDS/PP, who abstained from voting on the rate, that the controversy came.
In a statement sent to the newsrooms, Caçorino says that, "in addition to the substantive content of the aforementioned draft regulation and economic and financial grounds that support the approval of the tourist tax, do not comply with the legal requirements provided for in the Local Authorities Fee Regime, the proposal in question , as it was drawn up and presented by the mayor of Portimão, clearly violated an elementary procedural rule».
Which one? "To submit municipal regulation projects to mandatory public consultation, for a period of not less than 30 days, allowing all citizens and entities with an interest in the sector to comment on the proposal, presenting complaints, suggestions or criticisms", explains.
According to the councilor, elected by the Servir Portimão coalition, which brought together CDS and PSD, it was «only» due to his intervention that «the proposal in question was changed, and, according to the same intervention, it was decided to submit the referred documents public consultation, as required by the Code of Administrative Procedure”.
On the part of the Chamber, the response did not take long. In a public clarification, the municipality began by accusing Caçorino of weaving «untrue considerations'.
The proposal, "as well as the draft regulation and the respective economic and financial study, have not undergone any change, that is, the proposal presented was the approved proposal", explains the municipality.
As for the executive's deliberation proposal, drawn up by the municipal services, the autarchy recognizes that "it did not explicitly mention the mandatory public consultation of the draft regulation for a minimum period of 30 days, a fact that was questioned by councilor José Pedro Caçorino".
In light of this observation, at the Chamber meeting, and also in accordance with the clarification sent, Isilda Gomes, president of the Chamber, and the head of the Legal Affairs Division took the floor, "who explained to the councilor that, under the provisions of the in article 101 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, the public discussion of the regulation is mandatory, this fact is, in fact, public knowledge and practice always followed by the Portimão municipality. Notwithstanding this legal obligation, the proposed resolution was amended with explicit mention of the period of public discussion enshrined in the law," says the Chamber. In other words, it was not necessary to explicitly mention this period of public discussion, because it is mandatory by law and has to take place, but, for the avoidance of doubt, the mention was included.
For this reason, accuses the autarchy, “it is false that the proposal of the President of the Chamber was altered by the intervention of Mr. Councilor José Pedro Caçorino. The proposal presented was the proposal that was voted and approved under the aforementioned terms. The only change made was to the proposal for deliberation by the Municipality of Portimão».
“In fact, in the discussion, the councilor did not make any comments or suggestions for changes in relation to the president's proposal, the draft regulation and the economic study. On these documents, the councilor did not observe anything, having opted for abstention, which makes this public position strange», he adds.
In this communiqué, the municipality goes further and "regrets" that Caçorino makes a "common exercise of his activity as a mayor", trying to "set up a political circus" and raising "unusual suspicions about a procedure that fulfills and will fulfill in full everything that is stipulated in the law».
The charges have not gone unanswered. José Pedro Caçorino issued a new statement, in which he explains that his intervention did not lead to the «change to the substantive proposal for the creation of the Tourist Tax», but rather to the «approved decision» proposal so that it would «include the submission of the matter for public consultation'.
According to the councilor, «the intervention in the local authority meeting was also motivated by an additional circumstance: in the recent past, there were other examples of proposals for municipal regulations that reached the Municipal Assembly without having been previously submitted to public consultation, an omission that led to to their withdrawal and subsequent return to the Executive of the City Council without being voted on».
As for the accusations, Caçorino says that he regrets the “unbridled tone, bordering on the offensive, used by the executive” which, in a “contradictory and confused” clarification, throws “a smokescreen for public opinion”.
Comments